Citation Nr: 0001299
Decision Date: 01/14/00 Archive Date: 01/27/00
DOCKET NO. 98-15 053 ) DATE
)
)
On appeal from the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Los
Angeles, California
THE ISSUES
1. Entitlement to service connection for hemorrhoids.
2. Entitlement to service connection for a liver disability.
3. Entitlement to service connection for an undiagnosed
illness manifested by a stomach disability.
4. Entitlement to service connection for an undiagnosed
illness manifested by frequent urination.
5. Entitlement to service connection for a cardiovascular
disability, including chest pains and a heart murmur.
6. Entitlement to service connection a right knee
disability.
7. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral leg
disability.
8. Entitlement to a compensable evaluation for hypertension.
9. Entitlement to a compensable evaluation for tinnitus.
10. Entitlement to a compensable evaluation for a status
post right tympanoplasty with hearing loss.
REPRESENTATION
Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans
WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL
Appellant
INTRODUCTION
The veteran retired from active duty in September 1996 after
over 20 years of active service.
This matter is currently before the Board of Veterans'
Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 1997 rating
decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional
Office (RO).
One of the matters the Board must address is which issue or
issues are properly before it at this time. Under the
provisions of 38 U.S.C.A. § 7105(a) (West 1991), an appeal to
the Board must be initiated by a notice of disagreement and
completed by a substantive appeal after a statement of the
case is furnished to the veteran. In essence, the following
sequence is required: There must be a decision by the RO,
the veteran must express timely disagreement with the
decision, VA must respond by explaining the basis of the
decision to the veteran, and finally the veteran, after
receiving adequate notice of the basis of the decision, must
complete the process by stating his argument in a timely-
filed substantive appeal. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.200, 20.201,
20.202, and 20.203 (1999).
In September 1997, the RO issued a rating decision it which
it addressed 15 issues. A timely notice of disagreement to
this rating decision was received in March 1998. A statement
of the case was issued by the RO in May 1998. In May 1998,
the veteran filed a substantive appeal. At this time, the
veteran noted specific disagreement with a limited number of
the issues addressed by the RO in the May 1998 statement of
the case. Those issues are cited above and are the sole
issues before the Board at this time.
In a November 1999 statement, the veteran appears to be
raising additional claims other than those issues cited
above, though this is not clear. However, the Board may not
entertain an application for review on appeal unless it
conforms to the law. 38 U.S.C.A. § 7108 (West 1991). The RO
has not fully adjudicated any other issue and the Board may
not unilaterally take jurisdiction of any additional claims.
The RO should request the veteran to clearly indicate what
additional claims, if any, he wishes to pursue. The RO
should then take appropriate action to adjudicate these
claims, if any. If possible, the veteran should avoid the
filing of additional claims before the full adjudication of
his existing claims before the Board to avoid any delay in
the prompt adjudication of the veteran's case. In any event,
no other issue is before the Board at this time.
REMAND
In a statement received in November 1999, the veteran
requested a hearing before a Member of the Board at the RO.
In an attached document, it appears that the veteran does not
wish to travel, but believes that he must have a hearing
before the Board. Accordingly, in order to ensure full
compliance with due process requirements, the case is
REMANDED to the RO for the following development:
The RO should schedule the veteran for a
hearing before a before a Member of the
Board in Los Angles, California, in the
order that this request was received.
The appellant has the right to submit additional evidence and
argument on the matters the Board has remanded to the RO.
Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999).
This claim must be afforded expeditious treatment by the RO.
The law requires that all claims that are remanded by the
Board of Veterans' Appeals or by the United States Court of
Appeals for Veterans Claims for additional development or
other appropriate action must be handled in an expeditious
manner. See The Veterans' Benefits Improvements Act of 1994,
Pub. L. No. 103-446, § 302, 108 Stat. 4645, 4658 (1994),
38 U.S.C.A. § 5101 (West Supp. 1999) (Historical and
Statutory Notes). In addition, VBA's Adjudication Procedure
Manual, M21-1, Part IV, directs the ROs to provide
expeditious handling of all cases that have been remanded by
the Board and the Court. See M21-1, Part IV, paras. 8.44-
8.45 and 38.02-38.03.
John J. Crowley
Acting Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals
Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 1991 & Supp. 1999), only a
decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals is appealable to
the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. This
remand is in the nature of a preliminary order and does not
constitute a decision of the Board on the merits of your
appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1100(b) (1999).